Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/04/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin dressed by the court. Other cases involved the application of preliminary plans where compliance with other non-subdivision requirements re- mained outstanding. In comparison, McGrath's situation required com- pliance with substantive subdivision requirements that remained out- standing-namely, the need to obtain a certificate of sewer capacity. The court also rejected McGrath's argument that the trial court erred in affirming denial of the preliminary plan approval because all of the items cited as the basis for denial of plan approval were items with which McGrath had explicitly agreed to comply. The court held that once a preliminary subdivision plan failed to comply with the substan- tive requirements of the subdivision ordinance~ the governing body had the authority to determine whether the plan was rejected or conditionally approved. The court reiterated that since th~ lack of sewer service was a fundamental defect in McGrath's Plan, the Board had discretion to reject the Plan-even though the items cited as the basis for denial were items that McGrath agreed to comply with as conditions of approval. See also: CACa Three, Inc. v. Board of Sup'rs of Hunttngton Tp., 845 A.2d 991 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004). See also: Kohr v. Lower Windsor Tp. Bd. of Sup'rs, 910 A.2d 152 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006). Case Note: The court also addressed procedural issues related to McGrath's requests to present additional evidence in support of its appeal and to open and supplement the trial court's record. 12 @ 2008 Thomson ReuterslWest 94 --... "\ )